Sarah Deschamps and Michel Lebon

Modern Tokyo Times

The continuing expansion of Hennes & Mauritz AB (H&M) throughout Japan is clear to all fashion lovers in this nation. At first H&M focused heavily on Tokyo and Kanto which is the natural route into the Japanese fashion market. However, the pulling power of Osaka and the Kansai region soon materialized and in 2012 the Nagoya area followed the logical path of expansion. This reality means that 2013 will also witness new ideas from the trendy H&M brand in Japan.

H&M in countless surveys done by Modern Tokyo Times did extremely well because this dynamic company was ranked high on the list. These surveys relate to female fashion in trendy Tokyo and were aimed at younger ladies. Therefore, the age groups selected mainly focused on the range of 18 to 34 years of age.

It is clear that when H&M entered the Japanese market fully in 2008 that this company had great vision and natural self-confidence. This isn’t surprising because H&M was already a big hit throughout Europe and North America. Given this reality, then H&M had already achieved a buzz within Japan before opening their first store. Not surprisingly, many fashion lovers were waiting in anticipation because of the freshness of this company and its sheer innovation.

Several years later then in numerous surveys throughout Tokyo the company H&M was extremely high on the fashion radar. It didn’t seem to matter which district was picked because the same conclusion highlighted the power of this company within the Tokyo fashion market. This reality meant that in surveys taken in Ginza, Harajuku, Ikebukuro, Omotesando, Daikanyama and other powerful fashion districts in the capital of Japan, many trendy ladies selected H&M.

In another article by Modern Tokyo Times related to H&M it was stated that “The “fast fashion” brand of H&M is extremely popular for younger Japanese individuals because this company is trendy and affordable at the same time. H&M first moved to Japan in 2008 in trendy Ginza in Tokyo and since this time the company continues to grow and attract new shoppers. Therefore, the new outlet in Nagoya, which is based within the Matsuzakaya department store, is further evidence of the gradual move to other parts of Japan and this is most welcome.”

The second major area of expansion for H&M was the Kansai region and with great emphasis being put on the powerful Osaka and Kobe area. Osaka is a mega-city and areas like Namba, Umeda and many others, are awash with the finest in Japanese and international boutiques. Indeed, Osaka should be much higher on the international fashion map. This notably applies to the sheer size of the population and the purchasing power of individuals throughout this major economic hub which encompasses Osaka, Kobe and Kyoto.

The amazing “fast fashion” brand of H&M meant that it could enter the Ginza market with ease in Tokyo despite the leafy nature of this buzzing part of the capital city. Ginza is famous for the crème de la crème of fashion boutiques whereby the price range is often very pricey. This is only to be expected given the companies located in Ginza and Yurakucho. However, H&M took this in their stride and soon became a powerful brand within the high octane nature of Ginza fashion.

For now the rise of H&M is continuing in Japan because this company connected with Japanese ladies very quickly. H&M plays to the strengths that this company is blessed with and when extreme confidence is added to this, then clearly you have powerful forces at play. Therefore, for fashion lovers who adore H&M in Japan they will be eagerly awaiting new fresh ideas in 2013 from this innovative fashion company.

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Joachim de Villiers and Kanako Itamae

Modern Tokyo Times

The mass media in Japan and internationally overhyped the anti-nuclear reality in this nation after the Fukushima nuclear crisis, which emerged after the 9.0-magnitude earthquake unleashed a brutal tsunami. This tsunami in turn created the nuclear crisis in Fukushima after the devastating earthquake of March 11, 2011. Since this period you have had a lot of soul searching, political shenanigans, ridiculous reporting and outright scaremongering. However, time after time it was clear that the “nuclear issue” wasn’t what it was portrayed to be.

Prior to voting in the recent general election it was abundantly clear that the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) was much more open to the nuclear option, than the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) when applied to the long-term and possible phasing out of nuclear power. Despite this, and a massive media campaign internally and externally against nuclear power, the people voted according to their real priorities. Therefore, the LDP was elected based on economic factors and other areas which were given higher priority.

In truth, local elections also pointed in this direction because clearly the “nuclear issue” was driven by media pundits who wrote articles which suited their own anti-nuclear agenda. However, when the moment of truth occurred then obviously the LDP was entrusted despite being more open to maintaining the nuclear energy option.

Toshimitsu Motegi, Trade and Industry Minister, made it clear that the nuclear energy option would become viable providing the nuclear reactors were deemed safe. At the same time, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is proclaiming the economy to be the real target because of the current economic malaise in Japan. The natural progression from this is that the nuclear energy angle is more cost effective and reliable than alternative sources of energy, which could replace nuclear power under the prevailing conditions.

Motegi is also powerful within the current government when it comes to energy. Given this reality, he also commented that new economic measures would not be held to ransom by higher energy costs. He stated that “We need to reconsider the previous administration’s policy that aimed to make zero nuclear power operation possible during the 2030s.”

The power of corporate companies in Japan is enormous and many leading business leaders are alarmed by the high energy costs. If the economy of Japan was vibrant then maybe many business leaders would come on board with the anti-nuclear lobby. However, given the weakness of the economy of Japan and the lack of a real alternative energy policy, then clearly many business leaders desire the nuclear option to become viable. Of course, not all business leaders agree, however, many big players are clearly putting pressure on politicians via many channels.

Abe commented that “A strong economy is the source of energy for Japan. Without regaining a strong economy, there is no future for Japan.” This matches his other comments which have stated that he believed that the role of nuclear energy should play a more important role within the energy policy of Japan.

Vojin Joksimovich, nuclear expert in the field of nuclear safety, commented in Modern Tokyo Times that “The March 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident is the worst accident in the 55-year history of commercial nuclear power. The 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine released more radioactivity, but it was a single core-melt plus single hydrogen explosion, while the Fukushima accident was a triple core-melt and triple hydrogen explosion. Despite the unprecedented severity of the accident there were no observable health effects due to radiation exposures, which is true for both the members of the public and plant operating crews as well. The modern radiobiology provides scientific answers why no health effects were experienced. As a matter of fact, the most serious effects were not caused by radiation but by fear of it from the Japanese authorities ordering forced evacuations. The Japan’s Reconstruction Agency reported that the mental or physical burden of the forced move from their homes was the cause of 34 early deaths among senior citizens. Nuclear alarmism or fear of radiation was the root cause of people being panic-driven and this fact is proving to be costly post-Fukushima based on political decisions made within Japan and in some European countries.”

Further down in the same article Vojin Joksimovich states that “Nuclear alarmism is to be blamed for the post-Fukushima political decisions in Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Italy. In Japan, 17 nuclear plants generated electricity through the 9.0 Tohoku Earthquake, now called the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, while all 50 plants were shutdown in the May/June 2012 time frame prior to restart of Kansai Electric Power Company (KEPCO) Ohi units 3&4. 30% of the nation’s generating capacity continues to be idled waiting for the newly established Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) to establish a new legal safety framework which is not expected before July 2013. Meanwhile the country is relying on liquefied natural gas (LNG) and coal, both imported. Increased use of fossil fuels means a rise in greenhouse gas emissions even though the country experienced a fall in manufacturing output. KEPCO has joined TEPCO as the second utility to pass on the rising cost of fossil fuels. KEPCO has applied to raise the household electricity rates by 12%, while TEPCO received permission in July to raise the rates by 8.5%. In addition, KEPCO plans to raise a tariff on commercial customers by 19%. A third utility, the Kyushu Electric Power is likely to be the next.”

Yet despite scaremongering and mass alarmism by major media corporations, it is clear that the Japanese electorate have voted for the LDP despite knowing the nuclear intentions of this party. Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, BBC, stated during the height of the crisis that “The threat to Tokyo’s 30 million people is invisible.  Everyone is now asking themselves the same question.  When does the crisis unfolding at the Fukushima nuclear plant 150 miles (240km) to the north cross that invisible line when you decide the risk of staying here is too high?”

Of course, the above comment was massively overhyped because many Tokyoites never thought about leaving this major city at any point. Yet, the mass media adores scaremongering and inciting. Despite this, the people of Japan on the whole are more focused on economic factors. Also, many are apolitical and are neither pro-nuclear, nor anti-nuclear; yet many are pragmatic and for this reason the LDP was elected despite being more pro-nuclear than the DPJ.

Lee Jay Walker gave background support to both writers

http://moderntokyotimes.com/2012/12/16/nuclear-alarmism-has-driven-post-fukushima-political-decisions-japan-germany-and-international/

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

Vojin Joksimovich, PhD

Modern Tokyo Times

The March 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident is the worst accident in the 55-year history of commercial nuclear power. The 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine released more radioactivity, but it was a single core-melt plus single hydrogen explosion, while the Fukushima accident was a triple core-melt and triple hydrogen explosion. Despite the unprecedented severity of the accident there were no observable health effects due to radiation exposures, which is true for both the members of the public and plant operating crews as well. The modern radiobiology provides scientific answers why no health effects were experienced. As a matter of fact, the most serious effects were not caused by radiation but by fear of it from the Japanese authorities ordering forced evacuations. The Japan’s Reconstruction Agency reported that the mental or physical burden of the forced move from their homes was the cause of 34 early deaths among senior citizens. Nuclear alarmism or fear of radiation was the root cause of people being panic-driven and this fact is proving to be costly post-Fukushima based on political decisions made within Japan and in some European countries.

Health Effects from the Fukushima Accident

The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), an independent body of experts meeting since 1955 which has helped establish radiation as the best understood carcinogen in the world, has published a preliminary report. The report found no observable health effects from the Fukushima accident.

Last month I presented a paper at the American Nuclear Society Winter Semiannual Meeting in San Diego titled Fukushima Insights: Public Risks from Nuclear Accidents Grossly Overstated. My assertion was primarily based on Prof. Wade Allison testimony in the UK House of Commons, based on his brilliant book Radiation and Reason. He stated that the Fukushima accident resulted in no acute fatalities, no acute injuries, no extended hospitalizations due to radiation and unlikely cancer fatalities in 50 years. Modern radiobiology provides scientific explanations for these unobservable health effects including two seminal studies: a) 86,611 Hiroshima/Nagasaki survivor data —0.6% died from radiation-induced cancers between 1945 and 2000, and b) UNSCEAR Chernobyl studies (1988-2011). I had referenced also the World Health Organization (WHO) preliminary report of the Fukushima accident (final is expected soon) as well as the Tokyo University study.

Prof. Allison made a key point: “Nuclear safety is two separate subjects, risk to reactors and risks to people. Those do not overlap though few people make the separation.” This writer uses the terminology of investment and public risks. It is about time that the policy makers worldwide do their home work and distinguish between investment and public risks.

No need for Forced Evacuations

150,000 residents were evacuated using chronic exposure of 20mSv/yr as the guideline. This value is 10,000 lower than monthly dose to Japanese radiotherapy patients. In my paper I asserted that human and economic costs associated with the forced evacuations cannot be justified. The benefit cannot be quantified because maximum radiation exposure was 33mSv for the adults and 23mSv for young less than 20 yrs of age. However the human cost was 34 early deaths among elderly, life disruptions, school closures, relocations and restrictions which are still in place. Instead of the forced evacuations, it was sufficient for the Japanese authorities to order indoor sheltering, distribution of potassium-iodide pills if needed and a ban on drinking contaminated milk if needed.

No need for forced evacuations was an obvious conclusion from the UNSCEAR analyses of the Chernobyl accident in 1986. The most serious effects were not caused by radiation but by fear of it from than the Soviet authorities.

Nuclear Alarmism: Fear of Radiation

The radiation fear factor has been massively instilled by the media, which portray almost any release of radioactivity from nuclear plants as nuclear Armageddon. The politicians afterwards exercise their self-serving political instincts. These fear factors, are exploiting Hiroshima-Nagasaki bomb blasts plus the Cold War prospects of nuclear annihilation. However, obsessions with nuclear weapons were not supported by history, scientific facts or logic as discussed in great depth in Prof. John Mueller’s book Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda.

In addition to the media and politicians there are others to be blamed for this lack of understanding of radiation induced biological effects including the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which has developed radiation standards. The ICRP developed standards are not health risk-based. Instead the ICRP has been pursuing the quest of absolute safety leading to an as low as reasonably achievable approach.

Post-Fukushima Irrational Political Decisions

Nuclear alarmism is to be blamed for the post-Fukushima political decisions in Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Italy. In Japan, 17 nuclear plants generated electricity through the 9.0 Tohoku Earthquake, now called the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami, while all 50 plants were shutdown in the May/June 2012 time frame prior to restart of Kansai Electric Power Company (KEPCO) Ohi units 3&4. 30% of the nation’s generating capacity continues to be idled waiting for the newly established Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) to establish a new legal safety framework which is not expected before July 2013. Meanwhile the country is relying on liquefied natural gas (LNG) and coal, both imported. Increased use of fossil fuels means a rise in greenhouse gas emissions even though the country experienced a fall in manufacturing output. KEPCO has joined TEPCO as the second utility to pass on the rising cost of fossil fuels. KEPCO has applied to raise the household electricity rates by 12%, while TEPCO received permission in July to raise the rates by 8.5%. In addition, KEPCO plans to raise a tariff on commercial customers by 19%. A third utility, the Kyushu Electric Power is likely to be the next.

In Germany a moratorium was first imposed for seven pre-1980 built plants (8336 MW), five days after the Fukushima accident, then a permanent shutdown directive followed. Subsequently, the Merkel government made a decision to phase-out nuclear power by 2022, which provided 23% of nation’s electricity. Switzerland decided not to build any new plants, which would cost the country $33bn, Belgium cancelled life-extensions of two nuclear plants. Italy was in process of making a decision to build new plants but a referendum killed those prospects.

The impact on German utilities has been huge: thousands of job losses, multi-billion lawsuit against the government, withdrawals from overseas nuclear investments, like the Horizon consortium in the UK due to impact on the balance sheets. An illustration is provided with the case of E.On, one of Germany’s four nuclear utilities. Much of its power generation is impacted by government decisions to favor renewable energy over more economic options and closure of nuclear generation. In Germany, some other European countries and the state of California, feed into the electric grid from wind and solar has a priority when these sources are available due to their intermittent nature. When the feed takes place other more economic generating capacity, like gas-fired plants, are running at sub-economic capacity which makes them barely profitable to operate. This situation benefits carbon-intensive lignite-fired plants. E.On’s renewables made a loss and produced less than 1% power. The reduced nuclear fleet produced the most income and 21% power generation. However, this income will have to be slashed due to the unprecedented tax on nuclear fuel, which E.On’s is contesting in court. In November, Munich experienced its biggest power failure in two decades due to loss of 5 GWe of nuclear generation in the south with the inadequate grid being unable to compensate.

The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) published a report titled Nuclear Energy and Renewables: System Effects in Low-carbon Electricity Systems.The report addresses interaction between variable renewables and so-called dispatchable energy technologies (coal, gas, nuclear)connected to the same grid. It finds that dispatcables have system costs of less than $3/MWh, while the system costs for renewables can reach $40/MWh for onshore wind, $45/MWh for offshore wind and $80/MWh for solar. These costs are absorbed by rate-payers and producers of dispatchables. The new Japanese government should learn both from the E.On’s experience and this NEA study.In addition the Japanese government should pay attention to the World Energy Council (WEC) study, which shows that the most sustainable national power systems in the world combine nuclear with hydro for mass low-carbon generation. Ten countries were highlighted: Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Japan (prior to the nuclear shutdowns), France and Austria. Self-declared environmental leader Germany was the 11^th due to high carbon intensity.

What the Public Needs to Know about Radiation

Instead of believing the media, members of the public need to know: a) Everybody on the globe is exposed to background chronic radiation. The worldwide average is 2.4 mSv/yr. At Ramsar in Iran it is 10-260mSv/yr, but residents have not experienced health effects attributable to radiation; b) Diagnostic medical exams are acceptable worldwide (0.1-3 mSv). c) In radiotherapy cancer patients receive 1,000-2,000 mSv/day; d) Radiation is harmful at high doses and so is aspirin; e) Biological effects depend on single dose and rate of absorption (mSv and mSv/month or year). f) The single acute radiation syndrome (ARS) dose takes place at 4,000-8,000mSv. g) Nausea initiation takes place at 1,000mSv. h) The cancer threshold is 100mSv or 100mSv/month, below this level radiation exposure is risk free.

It is appropriate to quote the late Indian prime minister Pandit Nehru: “The policy of being cautious is the greatest risk at all.” In the early days when commercial nuclear power was introduced and less well understood, it was appropriate to be overly conservative in order to account for uncertainties in knowledge. These days are gone. Risks to human health associated with ionizing radiation are scientifically understood. The radiation standards should be revised and political decisions should not be based on fear but scientifically based.

Vojin Joksimovich, PhD has 40 yrs of experience in the field of nuclear safety

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Russia and Japan Try (Again) for a Rapprochement

Jay Doggett and Boutros Hussein

Modern Tokyo Times

Sudan and South Sudan have struck a vital deal which should pave the way for more normal relations in the short-term. This applies to oil payments between both nations which were in dispute until the signing of this deal. However, it is clear that both nations don’t fully trust each other and in the long-term many troubles lie ahead.

This is understandable given the past history of this troubled region and clearly both nations are still meddling into the internal affairs of each nation. How this can be stopped in the short-term is uncertain because you have many serious internal ethnic and religious issues in Sudan and South Sudan respectively. Therefore, the oil deal over payments and other important issues related to this is an important avenue to overcome but the bigger picture is much more difficult.

The spokesperson for Sudan highlighted the real issue being security. This applies to the comment that while a “reasonable understanding” was achieved, the area of security still needs to move forward. In early 2012 the government in Khartoum was extremely irked when South Sudan stopped the production of oil because of a major row over transit fees. Neither nation gained from this because vast profits were squandered by both sides despite both nations having serious issues related to poverty.

Talks in Ethiopia to solve the crisis have ushered in new promises after three weeks of important talks between Sudan and South Sudan. It is not fully known when oil production will begin but it is being linked to security issues between both nations. Also, given the delicate nature of politics in South Sudan then it is not known how this agreement will be received. After all, with so much suffering in South Sudan then people in Juba will be unhappy about compensating the Khartoum government.

In the past you had a bloody and violent war which led to the deaths of millions of people with the south suffering especially hard. The Arabization and Islamization policies of past Sudan governments, is not easily forgotten. Therefore, political leaders in South Sudan need to explain to the people of this new nation why the agreement is in the interest of both nations. Of course, South Sudanese people fully understand the economic angle but it will still be a “bitter pill to swallow” for many.

The former leader of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, commented that “The parties have agreed on all of the financial arrangements regarding oil….What will remain, given that there is an agreement, is to then discuss the next steps as to when the oil companies should be asked to prepare for resumption of production and export.”

Despite everything, it is clear that a trigger could easily lead to fresh tensions between South Sudan and Sudan. After all, both sides are involved in internal issues within both states related to delicate ethnic issues and other important areas. For now, it is hoped that both nations can move forward but clearly the relationship between Khartoum and Juba will remain tense for the foreseeable future.

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

US and Turkey oil companies bypassing the central government of Iraq

Joachim de Villiers and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

Two oil giants from America have now followed Turkey by bypassing the central government of Iraq by signing deals with the Kurdistan regional government. Of course, the agreements could be purely economic rather than aimed at the central government of Iraq. However, it is clear that the government of Iraq is displeased with meddling in Syria and these contracts could be linked to containing the power of Baghdad.

The Kurds are “in limbo” given the size of the Kurdish population throughout parts of the Middle East. Historically, they have suffered at the hands of several governments and this most notably applies to Iraq under Saddam Hussein and under several Turkish governments. Their plight is known in other countries like Iran therefore the “Kurdish Question” is very real.

Chevron is following in the footsteps of Exxon Mobil Corp and clearly political leaders in Baghdad view this to be interfering with the national sovereignty of Iraq. Turkey has also implemented a policy whereby this nation deals with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). This fact is adding more fuel to the fire between political leaders in Ankara and Baghdad, who are at loggerheads based on several important factors.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey is a bit of a maverick because he often creates negative tensions with regional nations based on petty nationalism and pandering to personal vanity. Therefore, since late 2011 relations between Iraq and Turkey have plummeted. The main cause of dispute is the demand by the leader of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, for Turkey to hand over Tareq al-Hashemi who was the Vice President of Iraq.  However, Erdogan refuses to abide by the Iraqi warrant despite the seriousness of the charges and this led to the leader of Iraq stating that Turkey was a “hostile nation.”

Turning back to American oil companies then Chevron signed a deal whereby they will search for this valuable source of energy in six areas under the control of the KRG. Chevron is following in the footsteps of Exxon Mobil Corp but it is easy to believe that you have political connotations to these dealings based on delicate geopolitical factors in Washington, even if this is denied. After all, the Shia factor in Iraq and ties with Iran is clearly worrying Saudi Arabia and given this reality the United States will protect the interests of Riyadh.

The central government in Baghdad is clearly alarmed by the lack of sovereignty over the nation of Iraq. Yet the KRG points to the fact that the Iraqi constitution allows the Kurds to bypass the oil ministry of Iraq. Irrespective of the constitutional factors behind this it is easy to believe that these loopholes in the constitution are detrimental to central forces in Baghdad. Also, the constitution was implemented under duress and clearly you will have weaknesses which may be challenged once Iraq resembles a unified nation state, even if federal factors apply. Therefore, the “Kurdish Question” needs to be solved in the future and the same applies to the needs of Baghdad.

In the Hurriyet Daily News which is a famous media source in Turkey it is stated that “Since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the country’s Kurds have signed over 50 relatively small deals. But the entry of Exxon Mobil and now Chevron may be a game changer leading to de facto policies that the Kurds have long sought.”

The article titled U.S. oil giant signs deal with Iraqi Kurds, defies central authority which was published by the Hurriyet Daily News further states that “Later on July 19, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s office said it had received a “positive and convincing” letter from President Barack Obama about Exxon Mobil’s oil plans in the Kurdish region, where Baghdad wants it to cease operations.”

“Al-Maliki’s statement did not directly quote from the letter and his office did not provide a copy of it. It called on the company to meet “recommendations of the Iraqi government and the recommendations of the U.S. administration regarding this issue.” The statement also implied that Obama would side with Baghdad on the dispute, saying his letter “stressed respect of the constitution, and Iraqi laws, along the same lines the Iraqi government is working.”

It is clear from the above comments that the leader of Iraq deems this issue to be political and that it can be solved by political leaders in Washington. However, with political leaders in Iraq being far from compliant then this remains debatable. Therefore, until a clear statement is issued by Washington then Baghdad will have to wait and see.

Not everything is negative in the field of energy between Iraq and Turkey. After all, just like increasing trade between China and Taiwan despite political spats, you also have similar deals between Iraq and Turkey. For example Basra in Iraq may expand its importance to Turkey and other plans are in the pipeline. Yet clearly tensions remain between Iraq and Turkey and likewise the central authority in Baghdad is concerned about the KRG.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/us-oil-giant-signs-deal-with-iraqi-kurds-defies-central-authority.aspx?pageID=238&nID=25984&NewsCatID=348

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Vojin Joksimovich, PhD

Modern Tokyo Times

The “Made in Japan” headlines prevailed in the nuclear and other trade press characterizing conclusions from the report by the Japanese Diet’s commissioned Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC). The NAIIC chairman Kiyoshi Kurokawa, a medical doctor and a former president of Japan’s Science Council, wrote: “What must be admitted—very painfully—is that this was a disaster ‘Made in Japan.’ Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the program,’ our groupism; and our insularity.” The mindset of government and industry led the country to avoid learning the lessons of the previous major nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island (TMI) and Chernobyl. “The consequences of negligence at Fukushima stand out as catastrophic, but the mindset that supported it can be found across Japan. In recognizing that fact, each of us (every Japanese citizen) should reflect on our responsibility as individuals in a democratic society.”

The Diet, the NAIIC and it chairman should be congratulated for their courage to call a spade a spade. Other investigations, such as by the Investigation Committee on Accidents at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations established by a Cabinet decision, stopped short of blaming Japanese culture. Interestingly enough the NAIIC’s harshest criticism of the Japanese culture was only published in the English version of the report. The Japanese version was more measured blaming the response to the accident on the mindset created by such aspects as seniority systems and lifetime employment. Kurokawa believes that outside pressure can help push change in Japan.

To some observers outside of Japan, mindset (term preferred to culture) as a root cause of the Fukushima accident became obvious as early as April 2011, a month after the accident. It was much less painful for outsiders, which have experienced the Japanese nuclear culture, to arrive at the same conclusion. This writer has delivered a number of presentations titled “Fukushima: Tsunami Induced but man-made disaster.” Analyses of the TMI and Chernobyl led to the same conclusion that the mindset was the root cause reflecting complacency prevailing in the US nuclear industry as well as the Soviet one respectively. To a different degree the same conclusions would apply to non-nuclear catastrophic accidents such as Bhopal, Challenger, and AMOCO Cadiz. Piper Alpha, Exxon Valdez, 2010 BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, even the cruise ship Costa Concordia which killed 32 people.

Kurokawa’s Report Criticism

Two articles published by the Financial Times are illustrative of Kurosawa’s report criticism in the west: Culture blame games are no way to prevent future crises by Mure Dickie, and Stop blaming Fukushima on Japan’s culture by Columbia University professor Gerald Curtis. Dickie wrote: “Focusing too heavily on culture could merely shift responsibility from institutions and individuals that took the decisions that led to disaster.” Prof. Curtis makes the same point: “To pin the blame on culture is the ultimate cop-out. If culture explains behaviour, then no one has to take responsibility. This is indeed what the report concludes when it says that the results would have been the same even with others in charge.” From my analyses of the Daiichi accident it was less than abundantly clear who actually was in charge. Hence, it is more appropriate to blame the mindset rather than individuals. I do not recall that any particular individual was blamed in the US for the TMI.

Japanese culture is top-down, which is not amenable to managing a fast propagating nuclear accident. Prof. Curtis mentioned the example of Masao Yoshida, the plant superintendent/manager, who “disobeyed orders not to use seawater to cool the reactors. Incredibly Tepco’s management initially clung to the hope that the reactors would one day be brought back to operation, something that would be impossible once seawater was injected into them.” This is a textbook example why the Japanese top-down culture is flawed. The TEPCO executives in Tokyo, who were not even in their offices when the accident took place, were simply not qualified to judge whether and when the seawater should be injected into reactors. By profession they could be lawyers or accountants with no adequate grasp for nuclear safety while the plant manager is the only person who could make an informed and timely decision. Incidentally, the new TEPCO chairman is a lawyer. Hence, in the Japanese nuclear industry cultural reform, the responsibility must be operationally delegated to the plant manager with no interference from his Tokyo office bosses in cases of a nuclear emergency.

It is conceivable that the Daiichi plant manager’s decision to inject seawater was delayed due to the Tokyo office interferences. There was no injection into the Unit 1 reactor for14 hrs and 9 mins. Difficulties in bringing in fire engines plus aftershocks were probably responsible for the injection delay. In case of the Unit 2, there was no injection for 6 hrs and 29 mins approximately 70 hrs into the accident. In that case it appears that there was hesitation to inject the seawater. The same may be true with regarding the Unit 3 with no injection for 6 hrs and 43 mins approximately 36 hrs into the accident. It would be an excellent first step in the cultural reform program to explicitly delegate the authority to the plant manager. The second step could be to appoint a chief nuclear safety officer with substantial background in nuclear safety and risk assessment.

Catastrophic Accidents

Catastrophic accidents are not random but multi-causal events. They are not acts of God but acts of people; consist of actions, decisions or omissions—like the line of dominoes (when the last domino is inserted the accident is triggered). In case of Fukushima the last domino was the tsunami  but beyond it was the man-made disaster. Because these accidents are acts of people they are highly preventable. Virtually every major accident had a precursor which should have alerted the responsible parties not only with regard to the potential of recurrence but also that the consequences might become much more serious, e.g. the 1978 Davis-Besse incident served as a precursor for the TMI.

In case of Fukushima one can argue that a precursor was the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, or South Asian tsunami. The earthquake magnitude of 9.1-9.3 triggered a series of devastating tsunamis, killing over 230,000 people in fourteen countries, and inundating coastal communities with waves of up to 30 meters. TEPCO failed to make use of an in-house study that estimated the extent of damage by huge tsunamis on nuclear power plants. The study was first conducted in 2006 by a group of TEPCO employees to determine what would happen to the Unit 5 if it was hit by waves higher than the design basis value of 5.7 meters. The group estimated that if the waves exceeded 13.5 meters the station blackout would take place and it would be impossible to inject the water into the reactor or to prevent loss of the ultimate heat sink. In addition, the group estimated that it would cost about $25 million to implement measures to prevent plant inundation by flooding. In 2008, TEPCO made another estimate to determine the effects of a 10m high tsunami. However, in both cases the company failed to implement the study results. According to the NAIIC, the regulator NISA gave no instruction to the company to prepare for flooding and even told the nuclear utilities it wasn’t necessary to plan for the station blackout. This represents a text-book example of lack of safety culture on behalf of the regulator. The TEPCO decision was penny-wise pound-foolish. They had jeopardized not only the public but the investment into Daiichi and Daini plants.

Anatomy of Catastrophic Accidents

Years ago this writer had identified catastrophic accident underlying causes as the 4Ms:

• Machine–design of plants system with its basic flaws;
• Millieux—natural phenomena, operational conditions, political environment, commercial pressures;
• Man—operational crew response, maintenance errors;
• Management—basic flaws in organizational safety culture.

Progress in evolution of the Probabilistic Risk or Safety Assessment (PRA or PSA) methodology has addressed each M sequentially, i.e. machine, milliex, man, management. While the first three Ms played a part in the catastrophic accidents to a lesser degree, the 4^th M played the dominant part. The term management implies the institutional safety culture, a composite of safety cultures of the key players in the Japanese nuclear industry, e.g. nine nuclear utilities, NISA, government agencies, academia, independent experts, etc. The Fukushima accident was not any different from other industrial catastrophic accidents mentioned above.

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) International Safety Advisory Group (INSAG) offered the following definition of the safety culture: “Safety culture is that assembly of characteristics and attitudes in organizations and individuals which establishes that as an overriding priority, nuclear plant safety issues receive the attention warranted by their significance.” An elaboration of this definition and a possible application to the Japanese nuclear industry is outside the scope of this article.

The Fukushima accident proves once more that the public risks from the operation of nuclear plants have been grossly overstated while the investment risks have been understated.

Overstatement of Public Risks

The Fukushima Daiichi accident, while being the worst accident in the 55-year of commercial nuclear power history, has resulted in no acute fatalities, no acute injuries, no extended hospitalizations due to radiation, and unlikely cancer fatalities in 50 years (testimony of Prof. Wade Allison in the British House of Commons). Modern radiology provides answers for why no heath effects including the 86,611 Hiroshima/Nagasaki survivor data in the time frame of 1950-2000 (only 0.6% died from radiation-induced cancers); the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) Chernobyl 2008 report: large number received doses less than 100mSv (cancer threshold) and no excess cancers other than the thyroid ones; French National Academies of Science and Medicine Study: UK study of radiation workers; century-old radiotherapy practices, MIT low-dose study, etc. The WHO preliminary report corroborates low dose rates measured. The researchers at Hirosaki University in northern Japan evaluated the radiation exposure and arrived at the following maximum exposures: 33mSv for adults and 23mSv for those under the age of 20. They point out that these exposures are lower than an internationally accepted limit of 50mSv. Remember that the cancer threshold is 100mSv. For some reason, the accident evaluation reports did not address this important aspect of the Fukushima accident. The American Nuclear Society (ANS) says that it was premature. But it was not.

In contrast to Fukushima over 19,000 people died from the tsunami. Had it not been for the media hype, the Daiichi accident would have been a side show. It is apparent to this writer that the Japanese government needs to pay more attention on how to protect the residents from another huge earthquake induced tsunami in addition to protecting the nuclear plants from tsunamis.

No Rational Need for Resident Evacuations

This writer asserts that evacuation of 110,000 residents cannot be justified on the basis of massive human and economic costs. The benefits to the residents cannot be quantified as illustrated with the Hirosaki University maximum exposures. However, costs of life disruptions, 13 suicides, painful relocations, school closures, restrictions in several areas not lifted yet, are quantifiable and have been in the tens of billions. The dose of 20mSv/yr used as the evacuation guideline was 10,000 times lower than the monthly dose to Japanese radiotherapy patients. An order for indoor sheltering and distribution of potassium-iodide pills would have been sufficient to protect the Fukushima Prefecture residents.

In case of Chernobyl most serious effects were caused not by radiation buy by the fear of it. After 36 hrs, 116,000 residents were forcibly evacuated. Exclusion zone to limit doses to 1mSv/yr led to evacuation of hundreds of thousands. Severe social and economic stresses included suicides, depressions, alcoholism, family dislocations, broken livelihoods, etc.

Investment Risks

Prior to the 1979 TMI accident potential financial losses associated with an accident resulting in the reactor core damage received little to zero attention. There was a huge complacency factor that a core-melt accident cannot happen despite the fact that the results of the Reactor Safety Study (RSS) were available in 1975. The TMI cleanup/decommissioning costs amounted to $1bn over 14 yrs after 45% core-melt. Post TMI, the nuclear utility industry was overwhelmed with the regulatory impact estimated at some $35bn. The mandated package resulted in substantial reduction of investment risk. However more was needed to be done to fully address the investment risks. The Chernobyl decommissioning is not over yet and the accident took place in 1986.

In case of investment risks concerns in Japan, it appears that pre-TMI climate prevailed despite the fact that the TMI happened in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. Some 1300 earthquakes were observed in 2010 and 2000 in a prior year. Mega-thrust quakes potential was there due to existence of subduction faults with potential for huge tsunamis. Credible PRA analyses would have identified investment risks with common cause initiators such as earthquakes or floods suggesting common-sense design changes plus severe accident preparedness badly lacking during the Daiichi accident. In addition there was a 2007 Chuetsu offshore quake close to TEPCO’s seven-unit Kashiwazaki Kariwa plants. Instead of making a prudent decision, the TEPCO shareholders were compelled to accept the $12.5bn government bailout in order to help rebuild finances in exchange for up to 75% ownership of the stock by the government.

Atomic Alarmism

The media projects that the Japanese public opinion has shifted from complacency to humility while atomic alarmism is prevailing in many local governments. The radiation fear factor has massively been instilled by the media which now matches the performance of its US counterparts, which report that any radioactive release as nuclear Armageddon. The politicians then exercise their opportunistic political instincts. In addition to the media and politicians there are others to be blamed for this lack of understanding of radiation induced biological effects, including the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP), which propagates radiation standards. These standards are not risk based; instead the ICRP pursues the quest of absolute safety leading to as low as practicable approach.

The media-induced atomic alarmism has been prevailing in the US for decades. For that reason this writer includes 101 perspectives on radiation in his lectures. A brief summary follows. Everybody on the globe is exposed to background chronic radiation. The worldwide average is 2.4mSv/yr. At Ramsar in Iran it amounts to 10-260mSv/yr, but residents have not experienced any health effects. Diagnostic medical exams are acceptable (0.1-3mSv). In radiotherapy cancer patients receive 1,000-2,000mSv/day. The radiation is harmful at high doses, but so is aspirin. Biological effects depend on single dose and rate of absorption (mSv and mSv/month or yr). Single acute radiation syndrome (ARS) at 4,000-8,000mSv; nausea at 1,000mSv. The cancer threshold is 100mSv or 100mSv/month, below this level it is risk free.

Restart of Nuclear Plants

Japan forms the focus of an in-depth study in support of the World Economic Forum (WEF) report, New Energy Architecture: Enabling an Effective Transition, as a country that needs to ‘rationalize” and re-organize mature energy systems. Such reorganization has become more prominent after the Daiichi accident, which has led to an “unprecedented level of debate and stakeholder engagement.” Prior to the accident, Japan had been planning to meet 60% of its electricity with nuclear power in line with environmental sustainability targets to reduce CO2 emissions by 54% (from 2003 levels) by 2050. The report doesn’t question Japan’s continued need for nuclear power and notes that “a hasty withdrawal from nuclear energy could be disastrous for Japan.” The report recognizes that decommissioning of nuclear plants is expensive but that any rapid change would jeopardize Japan’s energy security and increase its dependence on fossil fuel imports.

To this writer he finds it paradoxical that 15 nuclear plants generated electricity throughout the Tohoku earthquake, while all 50 plants (four Daiichi units have been written off) were all shutdown in May/June 2012 due to opposition to restarts by local authorities after extended periodic inspections (36 units with capacity of 31.8 GWe). These plants on the Japanese west coast were not damaged by the earthquake/ tsunami. The plants on the east coast were either damaged by tsunami or were shutdown due to the government request, e.g. Hamaoka units. This nuclear shutdown created a new era for the fossil fuels with associated increase in pollution. In 2012 the fossil fuel plants generated 90% of electricity compared to 64% in 2011. The fossil fuel imports are costing about $40bn or $333 per person, per year while its carbon emissions have risen some 14% above the 1990 levels. How many people will die from elevated pollution?

The atomic alarmism has led the local authorities to oppose restarts. These plants have been subjected to the IAEA endorsed stress tests, a post-Daiichi invention which was initiated by the EU for all of its 143 plants based on a set of common criteria. . The Japanese tests are computer simulations that analyze whether a reactor can withstand disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis. The utilities have promised higher sea walls to protect against tsunamis as well as ways to prevent station blackouts. The affected utilities submitted their stress-test reports between October 2011 and May 2012. Only three of those have been thus far reviewed by NISA and forwarded to the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC), which has approved Ohi-3 (Oi-3) and Ohi-4 reports. Following that the reports have to be approved by the cabinet ministers, local authorities and the central government. This process appears to be too cumbersome and should be streamlined. KEPCO restarted Ohi-3 this week with unit 4 to follow on July 18.

Some shareholders from the Japanese nine nuclear utilities have called for reduction or even elimination of use of nuclear power. The major of Osaka (city of Osaka owns 9.5% stake in KEPCO) urged the company management to abandon nuclear energy. However, all of these proposals were voted down at the annual shareholder meetings. At the TEPCO meeting, with attendance of some 4,500 shareholders, a proposal to shutdown Kashiwazaki Kariva units and replace those with gas-turbine generators were voted down. TEPCO is relying on the restart of those units to be fiscally viable.

TEPCO must fix design flaws and vulnerabilities with the remaining Daiichi units 5 & 6, four Daini units, and seven Kashiwazaki Kariva units in order to successfully fight the restart opposition. TEPCO plans to restart Kashiwazaki Kariva in the fiscal year starting April 1, 2013. The governor of Niigata Prefecture has expressed opposition to restarts in his prefecture. An excellent guideline for the upgrades TEPCO should consider is the package of 30 new regulatory requirements announced by Andre-Claude Lacoste, Authorite de Surete Nucleaire (ASN) chief in France in addition to those proposed by NISA issued on February the 17th. These include bunkered power supply systems, robust water-proof diesel generators, ‘rapid reaction force’ of experts and engineers that can be employed on short notice at any of 58 Electricite de France (EDF) power plants. They should be capable of ‘intervening’ during an emergency at multi-unit sites as well.

Kagoshima governor Yuichiro Ito, supporting the restart of the two-unit Sendai plant, defeated his opponent comfortably who wanted to scrap further use of nuclear power. This election, as pointed out by the Modern Tokyo Times writers, supports the reality that the nuclear issue isn’t the main concern of the Japanese people as the media hype is telling the world. The real issue for the majority of Japanese people like everywhere else is economics.

A Conclusion

The Kurokawa’s commission has concluded that “safety of nuclear energy in Japan and the public cannot be assured unless the regulators go through an essential transformational process. The entire organization needs to be transformed, not as a formality but in a substantial way. Japan’s regulators need to shed the insular attitude of ignoring international safety standards and transform themselves into a globally trusted entity.” This finding is indisputable. This writer would add that similar needs to be said for the nuclear utilities. In particular risk-based information needs to be massively introduced into both the public safety as well as investment risk considerations. The French regulator upgrade requirements should be given due consideration in addition to those proposed by NISA issued on February the 17th. Massive dose of education is necessary to counter atomic alarmism. The facts about radiation and its biological effects must be disseminated to the public. Once all of these steps are on the way, given the public attitude and need for continued use of nuclear power, the nuclear option in Japan should be heading towards where it was prior to the Daiichi accident.

Vojin Joksimovich, PhD is a retired nuclear safety specialist with over 40 years of experience and author of 125 nuclear safety papers presented at various international conferences.

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Walter Sebastian and Hiroshi Saito

Modern Tokyo Times

The mass media keeps on telling the world that the majority of Japanese individuals are against nuclear power. However, the recent victory for Governor Yuichiro Ito points to the reality that the nuclear issue isn’t the main concern for the majority of Japanese people. Therefore, despite the hype it is clear that the “nuclear option” is viable just like it was for the past few decades. Also, with the increased imports of energy hitting the Japanese economy hard it is clear that more and more individuals will put the economic well being of Japan first.

After the tragic events of March 11, 2011, related to the brutal earthquake and tsunami which unleashed the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, the media spin is often anti nuclear. In fact, major agencies all over the world appear to “pick statistics out of thin air” when stating that the vast majority of Japanese citizens reject nuclear power. Yet clearly the election in Kagoshima, just like other elections, doesn’t back up this “alleged theory.”

In various elections held in Japan it is clear that individual politicians who support the resumption of nuclear power have won. Also, even when politicians won who may be against nuclear power, they were elected not on this reason but related to other factors. Therefore, despite the media hype and other negative postures towards nuclear power it is abundantly obvious that this issue isn’t the main focus for the vast majority of the Japanese electorate.

It also must be stated that over 19,000 people died because of the tsunami which destroyed so many places in the Tohoku region and surrounding area along the coast. On the other hand, the death total with regards to nuclear power remains to be zero. This isn’t to underestimate the seriousness of radiation in areas close to the stricken nuclear facility. The same applies to the local fisheries community and towns within the 30km zone which have been hit hard. However, it isn’t the Armageddon which was pictured by many articles during the early period of the crisis.

Not only this, if you visit Fukushima prefecture you will notice that the commercial capital in Koriyama is thriving. Similarly, while “some media agencies appear to have an agenda” this isn’t helping the local economy in Fukushima prefecture. After all, tourist numbers have been down despite gradually increasing in recent months.

Therefore, for individuals who are concerned about the livelihoods of people in Fukushima many have visited the tourist attractions to over compensate for people who have been manipulated by “false reporting” and over-hyped statements. Indeed, if individuals visit beautiful places like the Urabandai region in Fukushima, then clearly the stunning aspect of nature is a clear reminder that the vast majority of Fukushima prefecture is open to the business and tourist community.

Turning back to the Kagoshima gubernatorial election then Governor Yuichiro Ito was elected for the third time to continue to run this part of Japan at the local level. Yuichiro Ito supports the restarting of two nuclear power stations providing the new safety mechanisms have been firmly put in place. His challenger, Yoshitaka Mukohara, desired to block the return to nuclear energy in this prefecture and then scrapping the nuclear reactors in the future.

However, the vast majority of people selected Yuichiro Ito in Kagoshima despite all the media hype about nuclear power. Individuals elected him based on many factors which were unrelated to nuclear power and this is the point. Even if an individual wins who is anti-nuclear, it doesn’t imply that this was the reason why they were elected. Likewise, if individuals are selected because they support the resumption of nuclear power, it also doesn’t imply that the vast majority of people voted for this individual based on supporting nuclear energy.

The real issue for the majority of Japanese people is economics and not the nuclear issue. Therefore, Yuichiro Ito was elected on the grounds that he is restoring financial health to Kagoshima.

Some politicians, celebrities, the mass media, and so forth, are hyping the anti-nuclear issue because of their own agenda. Yet just like in Tokyo when anti-nuclear demonstrations are highlighted in the media – it is clear that on the very same day more people will be shopping for fashion items in stores throughout major fashion areas. After all, while the “nuclear issue” is important for anti-nuclear individuals despite the tsunami killing more than 19,000 people and nobody dying from the nuclear crisis, it is clear the majority of people are voting with their feat.

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Walter Sebastian and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

Ryuchi Sakamoto is continuing with his anti-nuclear energy stance and pointing out the danger of nuclear energy which he is entitled to do so. However, ironically he moved to America a long time ago despite the thousands of nuclear warheads and being a nuclear energy power. It must have escaped him that he freely moved to this nation despite this reality and clearly this reality can’t have played an important part in his relocation. Not only this, earthquakes are a serious issue in America because of many zones in this nation which face this natural menace.

If Ryuchi Sakamoto is so principled about “the dangers of nuclear energy” then moving to America would imply that he doesn’t worry enough. Also, maybe having a huge stock pile of nuclear weapons isn’t the same?  Either way, if he wants to point the finger at Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda; then clearly Ryuchi Sakamoto should look in the mirror?

Of course Ryuchi Sakamoto is entitled to reside anywhere he likes in the world and because of his talents he is lucky enough to have this opportunity. Yet clearly if he feels so unsafe with nuclear energy then it is ironic that he moved to a nation which uses nuclear energy. The issue in Fukushima shouldn’t be an “anti-nuclear football” whereby individuals distort the real picture because it is hindering the local economy.

In an article published in the Asahi Shimbun titled “Japanese will have to continue raising voices against nuclear energy,” many negative comments directed at the political process were stated. For example Ryuchi Sakamoto comments that “I have always felt discomfort about the way decisions are made in Japan based on “the mood” rather than “logic,” and without proper discussions regarding principles.”

This is a strange comment to make because the nature of politics irrespective of the nation state often appears to disenfranchise many people. The war in Iraq wasn’t supported by many citizens in the United Kingdom, America, and other nations involved, because the “weapons of mass destruction” appeared “illogical.” After all, the United Kingdom and America not only have “weapons of mass destruction,” but both nations have companies which sell “weapons of mass destruction” and in the past both nations supported the government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Therefore, why is Ryuchi Sakamoto singling out Japan when this comment could apply to a host of nations?  Further on in his article he comments that “Feeling they can no longer trust those in government or the mass media, people have begun using dosimeters to measure radiation levels and creating databases by entering such information on maps. Young people have become connected through the Internet and have organized a new style of demonstrations.”

This is selective just like anyone because several members of Modern Tokyo Times have been in Tokyo when anti-nuclear demonstrations have taken place. However, Lumine 2 in Shinjuku which is a trendy fashionable company was busier in this single store on the very same day.  Therefore many “young people” are also unconnected in Tokyo and throughout Japan just like people all over the world who are unconnected by “so-called” major issues.

Ryuchi Sakamoto also commented that “Noda repeatedly referred to protecting the lifestyles of the people. But I wonder who he was referring to when he said “the people.” I took it to mean that he wanted to protect the people who were living in “the nuclear energy village.” This comment seems rather biased because many individuals who reside in Japan believe that nuclear energy is essential either in the short-term or long-term because Japan isn’t blessed with natural resources.

Of course, people will be divided on any important policy and for some individuals the nuclear sector is needed provided major safety measures are taken. Others look at the short-term reality and support this source of energy until a genuine alternative energy policy is implemented in the future. Also, many individuals will belong to the anti-nuclear camp like Ryuchi Sakamoto.

In Fukushima you have many vibrant areas like Koriyama which is very fashionable and a commercial power base in Fukushima Prefecture. Indeed, this prefecture is blessed with stunning nature and places like Ura-bandai (Urabandai) is a tourist paradise. However, because of a lot of enormous negative over-hype about the nuclear issue then many locals are suffering despite being no ill-effects in the vast majority of this beautiful part of Japan.

Therefore, when Ryuchi Sakamoto implied that Prime Minister Noda was only concerned about protecting “the nuclear energy village;” it could equally be implied that Ryuchi Sakamoto is only concerned about “protecting his own anti-nuclear objectives.” Given this, the continuing scare mongering about nuclear energy is making it even harder for the local economy of Fukushima and surrounding prefectures. Similarly, many tourists in international countries are not visiting Japan based on an enormous amount of disinformation.

Serious issues do exist in the immediate area surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Yet, the vast majority of Fukushima Prefecture is not only open for business but you have so many great places to visit. It appears that local communities are also being manipulated by aspects of the “anti-nuclear lobby.” This applies to the nuclear issue being blown up to a point which is detrimental to the overwhelming majority of residents who reside in Fukushima Prefecture.

The events of March 11, 2011, led to nearly 20,000 people dying from the brutal tsunami which was triggered by the 9.0-magnitude earthquake. Vast numbers of homes were destroyed and whole communities were devastated by the forces of nature. The nuclear crisis that emerged because of the earthquake and tsunami created another terrible dimension. However, the real issue related to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was not the “nuclear issue” but the mismanagement of this facility and lack of real safety precautions during a time of crisis.

It may well be that Japan in the future turns away from the nuclear sector at home while exporting nuclear technology to other nations. For example Japanese companies will help Vietnam and many other nations to expand their nuclear capabilities.

However, if Japan does move away from using nuclear energy it must be based on an alternative energy policy which is in the interest of this country. In nations like the United Kingdom, America, France, and many others, the nuclear sector provides valuable energy. Also, nations like China, South Korea, and India, will expand this sector respectively in their own nations.

The nuclear issue will always divide people just like other powerful issues. However, the silent majority which isn’t anti-nuclear or pro-nuclear understand the benefits of the energy that it provides. It is also clear that many companies are worried about the rising costs of energy and future power shortages. Therefore, Prime Minister Noda was addressing a wide audience when he talked about the need to protect the interests of Japan.

Of course, individuals may disagree but when prominent newspapers give “a voice” to an individual who can influence people then this also can be deemed to be “manipulation.” Ironically, despite America being the most powerful military nuclear power in the world and using nuclear energy, this never stopped Ryuchi Sakamoto from moving to the United States. Therefore, if he felt so comfortable in moving to this nation despite this reality; then does this not distort his own “mirror?”

Ryuchi Sakamoto is perfectly entitled to be anti-nuclear energy and anti-nuclear weapons. However, to imply negatives about others related to this issue without focusing on his own reality is rather ironic.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/opinion/AJ201206150073

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Pierre Leblanc and James Jomo

Modern Tokyo Times

It would appear that Japan will restart the Oi nuclear plant early next week or within a relatively short timeframe. The Oi nuclear plant is situated in the Fukui Prefecture and clearly many businesses will feel a sense of relief. This realistic event will take place because local leaders have dropped their demands after listening carefully to government initiatives related to safety and environmental concerns.

It is abundantly clear that Japan isn’t blessed with natural resources and with a strong yen, negative global economy, more imports of dirty energy, and without any real alternative at the moment; then this decision is based on pragmatism. Of course, not all individuals will be happy about the restarting of Oi nuclear reactors number 3 and 4. Therefore, the debate will still continue to rage within the political corridors of power in Japan.

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda understands the need to prevent any power blackouts and to help the economy of Japan which is under enormous strain. Also, the nuclear sector in nations like Japan and France are extremely powerful and last year Japan agreed to develop nuclear power in Vietnam. On top of this, Japanese companies are in the process of obtaining contracts in a host of other nations.

The central government managed to persuade the head of the Union of Kansai Governments and obviously business lobbying will have taken place. This business lobbying applies to influencing the central government and the Union of Kansai Governments. It is hoped that once the Oi nuclear reactors restart that some sort of normality will occur over installing a genuine long-term energy policy.

It may well be that the government of Japan implements further stringent new measures and creates new flexible mechanisms related to the nuclear sector. Clearly, many new measures have been taken related to nuclear safety and how various bodies will interact in the future. Indeed, the nuclear fiasco in Fukushima appears to be based on human failure related to many weaknesses within the system. Therefore, providing greater transparency takes place alongside new innovations, safety measures, installing proper back-up systems, and an array of important areas; then more than likely this topic will not be at the top of the political agenda during the next election.

Dr. Vojin Joksimovich, a nuclear specialist, commented in the Modern Tokyo Times that “It is now known that the Fukushima accident resulted in no acute fatalities, no acute injuries, no extended hospitalizations due to radiation and unlikely cancer fatalities in 50 years, according to Professor Wade Allison testimony in the UK House of Commons. 210,000 Fukushima residents have undergone screening without any health effects. Prof. Allison based his testimony on the book he authored Radiation and Reason published in 2009 and thus available to Chancellor Merkel’s scientific advisers (probably not consulted).”

Indeed, if you visit places like Koriyama in Fukushima today you will witness a vibrant commercial city, which is also extremely trendy. However, images of modern day Fukushima are rarely seen in the mass media when it relates to positive images of this beautiful part of Japan.

Of course, the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant can’t be underestimated but this mainly applies to crisis management, internal failures within TEPCO, the lack of independence of nuclear bodies, and other very important areas. It also became noticeable in the early stages that Japan didn’t fully take on board important advice outside of the country. Also, the measures taken to prevent a tsunami and earthquake from destroying an important nuclear plant was lacking because of weaknesses within the system.

Local farmers, fishermen, and other areas which have been badly hit because of radiation need major economic support within a specific but limited part of Fukushima. Sadly, many anti-nuclear lobbyists and environmentalists have blown up the crisis beyond what was ever plausible. This in turn generated new strains on the economy of Japan and continues to hinder tourism because of the irrationality of many articles and commentators.

Therefore, after listening to the central government, the Hyogo Governor Toshizo Ido stated that “We will accept the government’s decision.”  This means that the political bigwigs including Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and Yukio Edano, managed to persuade local government leaders. The role of Yukio Edano can’t be underestimated because during the height of the crisis at the Daiichi Nuclear plant it was he who commented daily about the crisis. Therefore, his views are widely respected within Japan.

Toru Hashimoto, the Mayor of Osaka, made an abrupt u-turn based on the strength of the central government and the fear that some major companies may relocate their factories because of shortages of power supplies. It is clear that Hashimoto needs to tone down some of his stances and adopt a more pragmatic approach rather than confrontational when it isn’t required.

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda stated that “I, the prime minister, will take responsibility for making a final decision” based on the decision by local leaders. Therefore, with their consent being given it would appear that two nuclear reactors at the Oi nuclear power plant will start to generate much needed energy once more.

The future of the nuclear industry in Japan still remains up in the air. However, until alternative mechanisms are fully in place then the nuclear option is needed in the short-term. In the future, nobody knows because the nuclear sector may once more rebound in Japan or alternatively a new dynamic energy policy may be enacted outside of nuclear energy. Yet, for now, this valuable source of energy is needed in modern day Japan therefore the starting of Oi nuclear plant is based on pragmatism.

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com/2012/05/29/merkel-dooms-the-eurozone-and-german-electric-industry-manipulation-of-fukushima-nuclear-crisis/

Pierre Leblanc and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

The Russian Federation and Japan have been holding important talks about building a new gas pipeline in order to meet the demands of Japan. It is abundantly clear that Japan relies heavily on energy supplies from Middle East nations. Therefore, given the closeness of the Russian Federation to Japan, it is only natural for political leaders in Tokyo to develop energy supplies with its close neighbor. After all, it is in the interest of Japan to develop a very diverse energy policy because of volatility in the Persian Gulf.

Gazprom, which is a very powerful player in the energy sector, commented that “The parties have discussed prospects of increase of natural gas supplies from Russia to Japan in terms of higher liquefied natural gas production at the Sakhalin Island and implementation of an LNG plant construction project in Vladivostok.”

It is hoped that these talks will lead to new developments between the Russian Federation and Japan. Given this, it is essential that the ongoing territorial impasse between both nations mustn’t hinder economic, political, cultural, energy ties, and geopolitical developments. Therefore, it is essential that political leaders in Moscow and Tokyo strengthen ties in all important areas. If this happens, then both nations will enhance the welfare of each respective country.

Joint initiatives will also strengthen the national security of both countries and help to boost the regional economies of the Russian Far East and Northern Japan. Also, increasing economic interaction, political dialogue, cultural links, energy ties, and other important areas, can also help in the area of developing joint military maneuvers.

Seiji Maehara, former Foreign Minister of Japan, met important players within Gazprom. According to Seiji Maehara a new pipeline could be laid on the seabed whereby both nations co-operate and strengthen energy ties between the Russian Federation and Japan. Gazprom in turn stated that “The parties also discussed the opportunities for a gas supply project from Russia to Japan through (a new) pipeline.” This comment correlates with the thinking of Seiji Maehara and this promising development will hopefully be enacted on.

Japan isn’t blessed with important energy resources therefore the Russian Federation and nations of Central Asia could help enormously in this field. Of course energy developments already exist between both nations but they are limited in capacity compared with what they could be. Therefore, Yoshihiko Noda, the Prime Minister of Japan, needs to put greater emphasis on the Russian Federation. Likewise, political leaders in Moscow need to understand the genuine concerns of Japan when it comes to the disputed territorial issue.

In a past article by Modern Tokyo Times it was stated that “The Prime Minister of Japan, Yoshihiko Noda, needs to openly start a process with President Dmitry Medvedev of the Russian Federation, whereby movement or accommodation can be met on the territorial issue. Alternatively, the Russian Federation should help Japan to increases its economic ties in Central Asia and leaders in Moscow should implement a non-interference policy with regards to delicate issues involving China and Japan. This notably applies to the territorial dispute between both nations. The Russian Federation should also seek to have greater contact with the military of Japan in the field of joint maneuvers.”

“It is also vital that Japan promises safeguards towards the Russian Federation and this applies to putting “military breaks” on America when it applies to activity in northern Japan. In this sense, it is essential that the political hierarchy in Tokyo shows a more independent spirit whereby the self-interests of Japan override the containment policies of America towards the Russian Federation and China.”

Turning back to recent developments, it is reported that the Japan Far East Gas Co. and Gazprom will build a gas chemical complex and a new LNG plant in the Russian Far East. These developments will take place in Vladivostok and will obviously boost the local economy. Therefore, it is also essential that business leaders and local politicians in Vladivostok and Hokkaido also strengthen ties because both areas need an economic stimulus.

Vladimir Putin commented about the territorial dispute that “We want to settle the territorial problem with Japan, clinch it, and do it in a manner that will be acceptable to the peoples of our countries…I think that the decision [the resolution of the territorial row with Japan] will come with the growth of the volume of our cooperation…and these territorial issues will even fade into insignificance.”

The nations of Japan and the Russian Federation will gain massively by strengthening ties in all major areas. After all, the ongoing militarization of China and the nuclear issue in North Korea are the main international areas of deep concern for political leaders in Tokyo. In the other vital area of energy it is abundantly clear that Japan relies heavily on the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Therefore, greater relations between Japan and the Russian Federation will “kills two birds with one stone” for  political leaders in Tokyo because it will enhance the security and energy concerns of Japan.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20120503/173198752.html

http://en.rian.ru/world/20120302/171686314.html

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Joachim de Villiers and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

The former leader of Japan, Yukio Hatoyama, appears to be involved in “dual diplomacy” and showing a lack of respect for the ruling party of Japan. His actions have alarmed people within this country and outside because it shows a lack of clarity within the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). This certainly applies to the importance of Hatoyama within the ruling party and because he is a key advisor within the government of Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda.

It is abundantly clear that Japan’s imports of energy from Iran are highly valued and needed at the present time. After all, the nuclear sector within Japan is still being hindered by the nuclear crisis in Fukushima. Therefore, energy politics are very important given the delicate nature of events in the Middle East and because of the anti-Iran policies of President Obama.

From this point of view, it is clear why Hatoyama is extremely concerned and this applies to the ongoing impasse involving Iran and segments of the international community, which are worried about Iran developing nuclear weapons. Iran denies any wrongdoing and also rebukes nations like America, France, and the United Kingdom, because of their double standards. This notably applies to Israel being a nuclear power and the fact that India and Pakistan joined the nuclear club yet little outside pressure was put on these nations to abandon their nuclear ambitions.

Also, Iran will point to the fact that all five permanent members of the United Nations have nuclear weapons. This applies to America, China, France, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom. Therefore, from the point of view of Iran then where is the credibility of these nations which desire to keep their respective monopoly of power?

The issue is clearly not about democracy because the government of China isn’t democratic and it would appear that issues related to safety are not at the top of the ladder. After all, in Pakistan this nation faces many internal problems because of the power of various radical Sunni Islamic movements which seek to usurp the government of Pakistan. This means that Pakistan should be at the top of the agenda because of internal instability. Similarly, the containment policy of preventing nuclear military proliferation was weakened by the reality of what India and Pakistan did because neither nation was isolated.

Turning back to Hatoyama then he stated that “I am acting, thinking about what contributes to the national interest….I did not send any message different than the government…” If so, then why was Hatoyama rebuked by members within the DPJ?

Osamu Fujimura, Chief Cabinet Secretary, criticized Hatoyama for holding talks with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is the leader of Iran. It is reported that Fujimura stated that Hatoyama “…should not have made the trip at this sensitive time, even as an individual lawmaker acting on his own accord…”

Koichiro Gemba, Foreign Minister, stated that Hatoyama must “act prudently so as not to result in dual diplomacy that would be different from the government’s policy.”  However, the trip certainly appears to be “dual diplomacy” because according to Hatoyama he is “thinking about what contributes to the national interest.” Yet it is clear that important members within the DPJ are upset by his actions and this doesn’t look good for Prime Minister Noda.

Iran is clearly a political minefield irrespective of the hypocrisy of some nations. However, the internal and external angle to this nation isn’t for Japan to become involved in because Iran and Japan have good relations. The same applies to Japan being forced into a corner with regards to energy supplies from Iran because this issue should only belong to Japan and not President Obama.

Yet the visit of Hatoyama to Iran is baffling because his visit is painting a picture of the DPJ which states “confusion” and “dual diplomacy.” This isn’t good for the DPJ and clearly it isn’t in the national interests of Japan to look splintered and enacting a dual diplomacy.

The Strait of Hormuz is very important for Japan because of the energy supplies which pass through this area on their way to Japan. Therefore, political leaders in Tokyo can’t be forced into a corner by America and cordial relations are needed between Iran and Japan. From this point of view, it is understandable why Hatoyama is so concerned but he should have only visited Iran on the condition that he was supported fully by Prime Minister Noda. This wasn’t the case therefore the dual policy of Hatoyama can’t be supported because of his influence within the ruling party.

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com